Bluffton Parkway decision on hold

The town of Bluffton's preferred alignment (in red) heads back to the Beaufort County Council's Public Facilities Committee, which voted 4-3 last week against endorsing the new route. The full Council decided Monday to return the issue to the subcommittee for clarification on legal issues between developers over future access roads and right-of-way donations.

The Beaufort County Council sent back a Bluffton Parkway realignment plan to the committee that voted it down last week, delaying a decision before the full body until at least April 22.

Chairman Paul Sommerville said during Monday’s meeting that discussions among council members over the weekend prompted the move to return the realignment to the public facilities committee to run down the legal issues among developers and clarify right-of-way donations.

“No, we are not ducking the issue,” he said. “There are so many moving parts, and we’re going to put them all on the table.”

The public facilities committee voted against a realignment pitched by the town of Bluffton last Monday in a 4-3 vote that included a “yes” from Sommerville, who isn’t on the committee but serves as an ex-officio member as chairman of the Council.

The project, included among a list of infrastructure works funded through a 2006 sales-tax referendum, adds a new 2.5-mile road connecting the northern intersection of Buckwalter and Bluffton Parkways with Buck Island Road, creating a straight shot that avoids the curved southern leg of Bluffton Parkway wrapping around Pinecrest before dead-ending at Buckwalter Parkway. Bluffton’s plan would shift the new intersection at Bluffton and Buckwalter parkways about 350 feet north while softening the curve.

The county’s original plan received environmental approval from the state in 2008, but the town came forward in 2011 arguing its design would allow for more developable plots, improve safety and save millions in right-of-way costs with promised donations from landowner John Reed, who was threatening to sue over a past agreement with the town that set an approximate route and gave him some latitude over its placement, though some council members want an independent legal opinion on the matter.

The latest cost estimate from engineering consultant Florence & Hutcheson concludes the town’s alignment would cost $4.3 million less than the county’s $26.3 million plan, largely because of right-of-way donations valued at $5.7 million.

But Councilman Jerry Stewart of Sun City and Councilwoman Cynthia Bensch of Bluffton challenged the right-of-way costs at last week’s meeting, insisting on an appraisal, and they bristled over Reed’s insistence on the town’s route as a condition of donating the land.

It’s still an open question whether the county will ultimately go through with the project at all, said Vice Chairman Stu Rodman, but the town paid $100,000 to evaluate the new route and its wishes should be honored, he added.

“I think we ought to approve this, but I think we ought to do it in a way where there are no open issues,” he said.

Chief among those issues: Agreements between Reed and Grande Oaks developer Doug Robertson over three access roads for nearby neighborhoods to the parkway, which would have to go through Reed’s land from Robertson’s tract. The rights for one, opposite Innovation Drive, are now in town hands, but council wants to see agreements guaranteeing the land for the other two will go to Bluffton upon a successful realignment vote, Sommerville said.

But Sommerville said after the meeting that he also wants it clear that approval of the route doesn’t commit the county to paying for those roads.

“There’s some sense on council that we’re being snookered on this,” Sommerville said. “I want to make it pellucidly clear that isn’t the case.”

He said he also wants a legal opinion on whether the roadway’s inclusion in the 2006 referendum obliges the county to build the project at some point, which is still years away.

Bluffton-area Councilman Tabor Vaux, who was previously on the fence, said he now supports the town’s alignment after a meeting with Mayor Lisa Sulka assured him spats between developers are resolved and the route is better for commercial growth.

“The town should have some say,” he said. “I was wrong for saying they came in the fourth quarter.”

The public facilities committee meets April 15. The full council meets the following Monday.

Sommerville said the committee can reverse the previous vote that effectively withheld its endorsement of the realignment.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

So now Sommerville and the County Council want to seek legal advice on whether the roadways inclusion in the 2006 referendum "obliges the county to build the project"?
Are you kidding me???

Just a couple of weeks ago they were telling us taxpayers that, due to the fact that the Flyover Bridge project was a part of the referendum, that meant they HAD to build it.

Once again, our elected loons are trying to have it both ways.
This group is like watching a bunch of chickens with their heads cuts off.
The only people being "snookered" around here Mr. Sommerville, are the Beaufort Co. taxpayers.

Dissolving the Town of Bluffton seems to me like the most logical thing to do next. It is just one more layer of dysfunctional opacity. Having one less layer of BS is a step in the right direction in my book.

At this point. I wouldn't be totally against that JS.
However, IMO it is the Town of Bluffton that has the better plan in this instance. Did they wait too long to present it? Probably.
But I wouldn't call it "coming in the fourth quarter" by bringing it up in 2011. That was 2 years ago (plenty of time to go over the plan) and we are still a couple years away from breaking ground according to reports.
Good to hear Tabor Vaux backtracking on the comments.
This group should backtrack on their comments more often because much of what they say is either inaccurate, or just plain stupid.

I agree with Sommerville that the council needs to pause and take a deep breath. Having the county attorney review all the legal aspects and give a recommendation and have hearings for the public is the sane way to approach this. The city of Bluffton needs to do the same.

heron- This stretch of roadway has been in the works since 2008. The only reason they need to stop and catch their breath is because of incompetence.
This is the section of the Bluffton Parkway that SHOULD HAVE been built ORIGINALLY. It's the only section that makes sense - even more so than the unwanted and un-needed flyover bridge.
The only reason Sommerville wants to put this on hold is because they don't know what they're doing.
That's called incompetence.

Was the county involved then? Seems the town of Bluffton has been on its own. The move lately for the flyover and an I-95 connection is just because it goes out of Bluffton town limits and involves Hilton Head, the county and Hardeeville.

heron- The County has been involved all along. In fact, the county is upset with the Town of Bluffton for the redesign because they subdmitted the drawing in 2011 after the county's original design from 2008.
The flyover was also in the original tax increase package, but I think people felt it would never happen due to lack of funding and the lack of support for concrete bridges going over the marsh.
The thing is, we-the-people didn't have much choice (just like we didn't have much choice when voting for additional schools). It was a "package" deal with items that were needed bunched in with items that were a waste of money and not wanted.
That's no way to run things.

Our elected officials have known from Day-1 what they wanted to do with this Parkway (take it from the bridge all the way to 95) but they didn't tell we-the-people of their plans on purpose because they knew it would never pass. This parkway was sold to us as a "road for locals" so we didn't have to travel on 278 and it was only supposed to run in a limited area. It was never sold to us as another HHI Exit that will turn into another 278 with a bunch of un-needed and unwanted retail (and traffic) along the way.

Comments are welcome, so long as they are civil. A Facebook account is required. Abuse may result in the commenter being permanently blocked. Personal attacks are strictly prohibited. We reserve the right to remove any comments at any time.